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
DarthAmerica       10/28/2006 8:27:20 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.

Things might be different? And if they werent you would be screaming about how much the war effort was a failure because of overkill. Seriously, stop demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge. Also this isnt WW2 if you didnt notice. I'd also avoid calling people lazy that I had no experience dealing with. You have no idea what we are dealing with.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       11/27/2006 12:39:51 PM
In the first place American's have a curious tendancy to define stalemate as "defeat". Which is why it is said that we "lost" Gulf I and Korea, even though it was not fought originally to conquer our enemy but simply to achieve a limited goal which was very quickly acheived(Korea extended longer then it might have because Truman took the opposite decision from Daddy Bush).
In the twentieth century there have been only two successful military cultures; "the western way of war" and the "revolutionary way of war". When these two have conflicted the results have tended to be ambiguous. The first is like a bear, the second like a hornet. While the bear would probably be able to kill the hornet he is often not willing to go to the trouble.
The Revolutionary Way of War is incapable of making conquests and depends on specialization with the cultural and natural environment as well as political lobbying. It's effectiveness is more in not losing then in winning. Sometimes that is enough.
But eternal stalemate is a normal part of life. In the real world there is seldom peace and seldom big-war, but there is almost always little war. It says something about the Western World's historical ignorance and chronological snobbery, that we wonder at the fact that it takes place and it says something about the wussification of the Western World that we should worry about ongoing strife. For myself  I don't worry about the enemy, I worry about the fact that others worry.
It is also arguable that Westerners have become too sentimental. Sentiment is different from compassionate  for it depends on emotional whim and is as much a means of satisfying our own desire as it is of being kind. Sentiment  must be regulated in war. While it cannot be said that everything is permited equally trying to make war in a squeemish manner is an error. War cannot afford to be squeemish any more then forensics. I say this because to often today people squirm at petty legalisms such as whether or not land mines or WP is acceptable. This seems a side note but it is a symptom of how we are unwilling to take responsibility for making war. And I might add, we are sometimes unwilling to take responsibility for not doing so as in Somolia where we couldn't make up our minds. In fact many in the West are unwilling to take responsibility for power at all.
Furthermore sometimes the only way to win a little war is to exterminate the population and defoliate the land. If we can't do that, and the results of retreat are intolerable then continuous strife we must have. We must be willing to accept that. Small wars are no more a threat to life then ordinary crime and it is a peculiarity to single them out.
Finnally the biggest threat to the West  is not  foreigners who can do no more then  cause a stalemate  in a miserable place far from home. The biggest threat is ourselves, our partisan grudges and political bigotry, and our curious self-hatred.

          Now Roman is to Roman more hateful then a foe
            As we wax hot in faction, in battle we wax cold

Whether that was true of Romans is not so clear. It is certainly true of us. We say things about each other regularly that would be worth ten duels 150 years ago. And to answer the next question, no I am not faultless in that regard. However I do think we have more important problems then how much we hate the opposing party.
 
Quote    Reply

rockymtnclimber    Associator's Comments & Who should we fight?   11/28/2006 11:44:45 AM
 
Associator asked if it would not be too much trouble could we please fight hard enough with the right foes to win the damn thing? I believe he has really swerved into the trouble with our foreign policy.
  The United States of America has been at war with Iran, Syria, and North Korea for a long time. We have not been treating this "conflict" like a war, but they have. For that reason one could argue that Iran and Syria have scored against us time and again and they have not been answered.  Actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are a symptom of the conflict and have served to prepare the chess board for final moves (west wins, check mate in two moves). In typical western fashion we are about to surrender the board to the Iranians and their lackeys and walk away. Hello November Elections, lets snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. "Sigh".
  Iran/Syria wants to blow up Israel just as bad as Hitler/Germany wanted to dominate the world. We can stop them (just like the French & Brits could have stopped Hitler in the 20's and 30's) but we will be doing what? Signing up for the "Baker Commission" that says we should once again negotiate with terrorists. "Peace in our time!". De Jevu all over again.
  Is it just me or did those idiots (Powell,Hamilton,Baker,Scowcroft, Bush#1) set us up in Iraq by not finishing this mess the first time?
  WE ARE AT WAR! We are at war with IRAN. We are at war with SYRIA. We are at war with NORTH KOREA.
 
Anyone who does not accept that, come to terms with that, and agree to kill the above until they surrender to us unconditionally, is the soft underbelly of the west.
 
"Find the enemy and shoot him down! All else is nonsense" - Baron Von Richtoffen
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel       11/28/2006 8:35:39 PM
On Rocky's last post, he is essentially correct.  I will point out, however, that anyone expecting the underbelly at large to EVER have a collective epiphany is having a mere daydream impossible of realization.  Despite this, it would have been possible for the US to fight and win in Iraq after 9-11.  Bush swore he would act decisively, and maybe we all thought he would, but he has left us in a meatgrinder with a foolish "stay-the-course" theme we are somehow supposed to accept as humbly and nobly American.
 
What damned nonsense.  If the fool had looked back instead of relying on his father's "vision thing" and a worthless optimism untempered by reality, he might have been able to discern that we would arrive quickly at our present situation - facing the convergence of the vile Islamic elements that perpetrated 9-11 with the power of a deliverable nuclear weapon.  And now he brings in those dolts Baker and Scowcroft so they can opine publicly about how force isn't the answer?
 
Brutal force was the only answer to 9-11.  Any other response - anything less than a demonstration that the United States possesses both the power and the will to annihilate anyone who attacks us - and we would only encourage our enemies that they could bring down the entire nation with patient determination and the right plan.  We are seeing this played out now.  A coalition of America-haters is working against us, facilitated by the opportunistic Russians and Chinese who will one day see the Iranian bomb they helped create turned against them as well. 
 
What we should have done, and what the public would have accepted, is engaged on a crash military buildup and smote Iran and Syria with great devastation.  If we would have found it necessary to put the sledgehammer down on Iraq in order to establish a base from which to do so, then fine.  The world would have reacted in horror, but that is a desired result in my opinion.  The entire world expected us to hit Iraq after 9-11, and we met those expectations and no one was surprised.  I personally believe we have shown our enemies we are pathetically predictable.  But had we hammered Iran and Syria, and let Israel clean out the Bekaa for real later on down the road, our global enemies would be pacified for 20 years.
 
I just cannot now believe how few people realize we are on the precipice of American life as we have known it and expected it always to be.  I cannot believe the arrogant bastards who said a military buildup will be too expensive and impractical and now they vote for Iraq appropriations with great vigor and loudly proclaim their patriotism.  With schmucks like our leaders, victory is assured (for our enemies).
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



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