The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Will the West ever win a war in the Future? I don't think so...
Herc the Merc    10/24/2006 2:18:01 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.
 
Quote    Reply

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

Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
GOP       10/25/2006 5:12:07 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.

 

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.

++++ 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.

 

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.

++++ 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.

 



1) I agree with you, but in your original post you said they had "won".
2) I never said they were any good whatsoever, I mean't that they are very tough and determined. The Taliban/AQ guys are even tougher, but their tactics also suck.
 
3) There is no easy way out, herc. Definitely not any magical plan. We are dealing with insurgents who know what they have to do to win, and we also know what we have to do to win. It's all about hearts and minds, staying the course, killing their leaders, and securing the boarder. We could kill 10,000 insurgents tomorrow, but 11,000 would be back tomorrow because of how easy it is for these guys to get in. I realize most of the insurgents are homegrown, but the 'professionals' so to speak are foreigners...they are the carbombers and mass mayhem types who do most of the damage. 
3)
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    GOP my point exactly   10/25/2006 5:17:18 PM
You said there is no magical plan--I would kindly remind u that we live in the USA and all of us like nothing short of magic--microwave dinners to instant money to rmote control. Now what did u say about hanging around in Iraq for years spending 80billion a year as long as Bush is there it is ok?? I am shocked Bush thought we were that persevering. Perhaps he should remeber he is President of USA-- a 30 second sound bite is all he is got-frankly its a drag. Gone Fishing.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/25/2006 5:24:49 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??


Honestly, I don't know.  Off hand, I'd say CNN leaving town may help.  I don't think CNN covering the Normandy beaches or Iwo Jima would have helped our WWII war efforts at all.  Maybe the 80 Billion would be helpfull if we could dump it more directly into the Iraqi economy and put more people back to work on reconstruction projects.  A pay day, a job and some self respect I think would go a long way to making the populace more resistent to the various groups of trouble makers.   I'd think an additional 20,000 troops there would helpfull.  Use them to further secure rough areas or to more agressively search for trouble makers.  And that is really just my 2 cent armchair opinion only.. I certainly don't feel like I have any sort of special knowledge of the situation.
 
That being said.. 
 
Darth know's that I don't often agree with him, but in this case I sort of do.  Since when have wars been fought on time tables and budgets?   Did anyone go to Washington and say, ok you have 3 years, 2 million dollars (or whatever) and 20K thousand troops (NO MORE!) and get rid of those Red Coats or all is lost?  Did anyone go to FDR and demand on Dec 8th, 1941 that he present his budget for WWII and by the way, we would really like it done by 1944?
 
Now, I suppose this comes up with Iraq more because a lot (dare I say most) people viewed this as an option. Maybe thats the case.  I suppose, that is my biggest problem with the Iraq war is I feel the President did an insuficient job in explaining some simple facts to the instant gratification generation that things could take a very long time to accomplish our goals. 
 
"Reforming" a nation of 25 or so million people simply can't be done over night and on the cheap.  Either we accept that to be successfull (which is never a guarantee) it will likely take a long time and a rather large sum of money (I'm thinking like the occupation of Europe and the Marshall Plan post WWII but on a smaller scale) OR we don't in which case we are stuck with a sunk cost of the operation to date and whatever inadequate amount we spend in the future in some sort of scheduled withdrawal.
 
Frankly, I don't feel that have a great enough understanding of what is actually going on over there to even come close to saying what I would do differently at this point. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/25/2006 5:27:11 PM

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.

Again, another bad analysis from you Herc and more proof that you do not understand whats going on. 12-18 months doesnt represent the end of the coalition presence in Iraq. As far as poor planning goes, again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. The operation was quite well planned. But like all war plans, it didnt survive first contact with the enemy. They rarely do. There are numerous instances of this throughout the history of war. We may not have adapted to things as fast as we should have but that 20/20 hindsight. The point is we are making the changes to deal with the situation and if given enough time to work, its very likely to succeed. But the opposition isnt asking for more time. They want immediate results such as pulling out and abandoning Iraq altogether. This is something you yourself tacitly advocate now and previously before being piled on openly advocated.

I watched a Diana Finestien political ad last night that reminded me of you Herc. She mentioned several things she wanted to do in talking point form including "Get our Troops out of Iraq". There was no explaination of why or what the consequences of that action would be. Just "Get Out". Thats the mantra thats being pushed on people as they watch "Dance with the Stars" or "Law and Order". The average person doesnt have the sophistication to know the details or consequences of this and would really rather not have to endure the ads. But its the message in this ad that will go with them to the voting both. Fast forward 10 years and people will be wondering why we are back in Iraq a 3rd time trying now to stop Iranian Military units from siezing parts of Iraq under some bogus territorial claim. Oh, "get out of Iraq". Thats if people even remember. The Democratic leadership of course knows this but hey who cares right? Its all about getting back into power. We can fix the problem later. And all those stupid TV watching fools will be the ones whos children will be sent to deal with it all because they didnt pay attention.

Herc, in a lot of ways you are fascinating to read. Dont feel special because there are many others like you. Shehaan comes to mind. But you are being used quite skillfully by an enemy who has mastered the art of psycological warfare as much as we have mastered control of the skies above with our F-22's. And our own voting system is the delivery system for your ignorance. Its brilliant. The only hope we have is that lazy TV watching people tend not to vote in as large numbers thus giving some hope that whichever party governs has some amount of flexibility in exercising policy. But its really a sad state of affairs when something so simple is so misunderstood.

And there you have it. The reason why "The West" will have a very difficult time until either

A: -We change our current form of government to one where the individual has to demonstrate competency and earn the right to vote.

or

B: -Americans and allied citizens wake up and take an interest in whats really going on around them and how it affects the nation.


Short of that, only luck will save us as a society because we have become so rich and powerful that we have forgotten what it took to get there.


DA
 
Quote    Reply

RaptorZ       10/25/2006 6:48:54 PM

Can an infantry soldier interject his level of thought on this question?  . 



I won't quote Associator's entire thread, but this is exactly what I agree with and have tried to say a few times.   The West will win wars in the future, although it will be the type of wars that we all wanted to avoid.  But, unfortunately, those wars are the only acceptable ones where we can use brutal force and will.
 
The US in particular and others have learned that regional or minor wars with media and caring for the population as a whole will never work when trying to rebuild or achieve a military goal.   Overwhelming brutal force of defeating the enemy is the way to go.   I completely understand what we were trying to do with winning the hearts and minds.   But that only works with civilized peoples.   From Viet Nam to Afghanistan to current Iraq.   All three nations would have crumbled like Japan and Germany if the proper force was used.   But the world and many in the States would not accept it.  So we got what we got here.
 
We can no longer go in half assed with our troops and expect to win.   World opinion is too strong, at home no one has the heart for our soldiers fighting and some dying (and I don't blame em but it is what we/they signed up for).  
 
The US I think has learned that we will protect our interests and if Military force is required from here on out, it won't be pretty.  
 
The saddest part of this is we've (The US) have been painted in this corner.   I'll admit we're guilty of this too at times;   Chechnya we should say, Russia do what you got to do, we're done caring for the masses b/c we've learned that everyone will turn everything against us when we try it next time.  And unfortunately, there will be a next time, but our troops will be on a mission to do what they've been trained to do.  Not Peace Corp crap..
 
Mark this time in history as the time the US revamped it's view on global politics as well as military use and plans.   That's if we're smart...if we're dumb it'll happen again....But make no mistake for next time, if we suspect Iran supplying arms and men, next time we will expand into their territory and destroy anything that moves, cuz we can.   Syria the same.   Eventually like Germany and Japan the will to fight the economic loss, the destruction will be enough to destroy anyones fight.  I don't think Japan nor Germany particularly cared for us in 1946......but they seem to be pretty good friends now don't they?   
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       10/25/2006 7:06:35 PM
When a bee stings you, you slap at it.

When two bees sting you might wave both hands around trying to hit them after slapping them off.

When three bees sting you, you get angry and spend a little longer trying to kill them.

When a nest of bees come at you, you get a can of bee killer and kill them and their nest.

Then there is no more problem with the bee.

We've taken only one serious sting.

Keep stinging, the can of bee spray is sitting and ready, already used twice.

 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/25/2006 8:43:32 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? 

In any case the question is not whether "limited war" is successful but whether the alternatives are acceptable. And we have succeeded as long as we are still alive.
The other question is how limited is limited? Limited war is still war.

 
Quote    Reply

Claymore       10/25/2006 11:08:22 PM
Herc that was the biggest simpleton argument I have seen.

We are not losing in Iraq, I we truly wanted to we could stay there for the next 100 years. All we are loosing is getting the people to stop shooting each other and be civil people. America is able to replace the sniped soldier however we do not tolerate that, we expect perfection.

I am sure if you hero's with AKs and RPGs tried to attack American soil they would be utterly destroyed. What we are trying to do in Iraq is not war anymore, we defeated the armiers, now it is maurding thugs and sucide bombers.

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       10/26/2006 12:08:52 PM

After WW2 how many wars has Western Europe or USA won, barring the cold war. I think its a pretty dismal number,

there have been a couple of high profile defeats for the west but if you look at the actual numbers of conflicts the west has by and large been winning them.  the british in particular have fought a lot of these little counterinsurgencies and have always achieved their goals.  the only one that failed was suez and that was due to outside pressures rather than the egyptians.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Claymore I need to stop laughing   10/26/2006 12:15:21 PM
The "thugs" you claim to be are ex Iraqi army that Bremer disbanded, and Shias we trained-we are fighting an army--we couldn't stay there for 100 years- i doubt 3 yrs max. What we are fighting in Iraq is very much a war, a guerilla war practiced by inferior armies successfully for ages. And we are very much the losers. The insurgents are breaking the back of US will and thats what you need to win, but then the insurgents will have a civil war to get topdog again. So frankly there is no clear winner, but there is a clear loser--the USA. $400billion-25000 casualties and nothing to show for it--oh yeah the SUN got Saddams snapshot in his underwear. The papparazzis win again. Going back to the thread, the Iraq war is a clear example of the myth of Western militarily superiority, u know an F-22 not maketh a power, but a will to fight does. Its like giving a kid a Porsche, prefer to teach him to earn and buy his own, thats what we are, the subsequent generation of hard warriors-softies and couch potatoes are us now, the progidial weak generations. The boots on ground still needed to win wars.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       10/26/2006 12:33:49 PM
12-18 months doesnt represent the end of the coalition presence in Iraq. As far as poor planning goes, again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. The operation was quite well planned.
 
 
at the rate the coalition is shedding members 12-18 months may be optimistic.  there will be american troops there the pentagon figures through at least 2010.
 
the military op to conquer iraq was pretty well planned and executed allowing for some logistical snafus along the way and whoever has a war without those kinds of headaches.
it was the plan for the day after the war than honked so very very badly and that one you really cannot lay on the pentagon.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Effects of maintaining a longterm anti-insurgent operation-- This is an Indian army case in Kashmir   10/26/2006 2:31:29 PM
Fighting insurgency: Army jawans under high stress in J&K

Fighting insurgency: Army jawans under high stress in J&KFayaz Bukhari, Zafar Iqbal

Watch story News India

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 (Jammu, Srinagar):

In the last one year at least six jawans have lost control and opened fire at colleagues. They have worked alongside for years.

The reason for such attacks may be stress, perhaps loneliness or even violence and uncertainity of daily battles.

There are no easy answers. But the truth is cast in blood, as shootouts in army camps in the valley are becoming a part of everyday reality.

Two brutal shootouts have taken place in army camps of Rajouri over the last week.

On Monday, a Jawan of 60 Rashtriya Rifles killed two colleagues apparently without any serious provocation.

Just the day before, in another camp nearby, a soldier shot three colleagues dead. There reasons were, again, unknown.

"We have ordered an enquiry on why this happened," said Colonel S D Goswami, Army PRO.

There might not be easy explanations but these shootouts have become a party of our force's everyday reality.

Brutal cases

This year itself, over six cases were reported, each more brutal than the other.

On September 14 this year, 27-year-old Army major Harsh of 38 Rashtriya Rifles, leading counter-insurgency operations in Rajouri, fell to the bullet of his office clerk Naik N Ravi.

Ravi pulled out a gun after Harsh pulled him up for inefficiency.

"Had it been the enemy, he could have battled them. He was a brave soldier and has killed militants. The army must introspect why these incidents take place, why I had to lose my son," said Raj Singh, Major Harsh's father and a Retd Commandant of BSF.

On April 4, 2006, in another bizarre shootout outside the CM's residence in Jammu, Anand Kumar Singh, a CRPF jawan on guard duty, suddenly opened fire and killed three colleagues, including an inspector.

Strained relations

Army said it was a case of strained relations.

"This was an interpersonal relationship problem, due to which he fired," said Gopal Sharma, Director General of Police, J&K.

NDTV: Are you taking a serious note of this?
Gopal Sharma: Of course we are. We are looking into if there is anything else needed to be done for their living conditions or performance of duty. We will do that.

On March 6, 2006, there was yet another bloodbath at the transit camp in Miran Sahib, 10 km from Jammu.

Naik Suchender Singh of 21 Rajput Regiment gunned down three soldiers during a minor argument. When Subedar Major Bhor Singh tried to intervene Naik killed him too.

"He was suffering from depression and was a low medical category case since June 2005," said Sheikh Mehmood, SP, South Jammu.

On January 25, 2006, just days after killing two fidayeens at Srinagar, CRPF jawan Avtar Singh killed four of his colleagues over a small argument.

"He had been tense. He was facing family problems," said Yuvraj Singh, DIG, BSF.

Common occurrence

It is not something uncommon in the state. Shooting of colleagues by the security forces speaks volumes about the mental stress jawans are facing while fighting unconventional war in Kashmir.

What adds to the stress is the denial of leave, reprimands, and sometimes even simple arguments.

Also, little-known but true fact, almost every jawan in Kashmir carries a personal weapon that is loaded at all times.

So even after Army rifles go back to the unit armoury guns have been pulled out over small arguments.

Battling the enemy within is not easy. Music, films, poetry may bring in good cheer.

"The only objective is that the jawans feel happy. Their tensions are released and their morale is kept high. Such diversions are required," said J K Sinha, DG, CRPF.

But efforts such as these to keep the jawans entertained are clearly not enough.

"Our confidence wears out as we are always away from home on a very difficult job," said Kaptan Singh, Head constable, CRPF.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/26/2006 3:33:16 PM
The West has a tough time fighting on other people's home ground, which is expected.  No too many people are eager to meet the West even in green water, much less on the high seas or in the skies.  So having a mixed bag of results is not some sort of "bellweather" of western decline, no matter how much Hercky wishes it was.  It just simply means that the West is not a bunch of ruthless mass murderers, which is what would be needed to have a better record of territorial suppression.



 
Quote    Reply

wrathofachilles       10/28/2006 8:00:35 PM

The West has a tough time fighting on other people's home ground, which is expected.  No too many people are eager to meet the West even in green water, much less on the high seas or in the skies.  So having a mixed bag of results is not some sort of "bellweather" of western decline, no matter how much Hercky wishes it was.  It just simply means that the West is not a bunch of ruthless mass murderers, which is what would be needed to have a better record of territorial suppression.





It's not that the west will never win again. It's just that the West's foes have learned how to fight it. You can bet that if the US had fought in Iraq the way it had in World War II (ie blasting everything in sight irrespective of civilian losses with unabashed use of massive, overwhelming force) the locals would have been too shocked, awed and cowed to mount an insurgency. It's just that you can no longer do this in the CNN/Al-Jazeera era. The  Iraqis opposed to America knew this,  and were able to capitalize on it.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/28/2006 8:20:46 PM
If Dumbsfeld had occupied Iraq WW2 style, with alot of troops and especially alot of MPs and construction units instead of lazy, thieving KBR, things might be different as well.



 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy