One cannont ignore the present any more than they can the past
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Sorry Bob, but all this "Complexity" and "Empowered Actors" you are just ignoring 3,000 years of History. How is any of this different from the
assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, the
"Gun Powder Plot" hatched in in 1605.
Look at Europe in the 14th Century. Greatly more dangerous and disordered than anything we can possibly imagine today. I just don't get all the confusion here. What is it you find so complicated?
Every generation talks about the challenges of raising teenagers....I get it. Some things don't change much.
However; anyone who thinks that the new tools of communication have not had a powerful effect on the tactics, techniques, and procedures that have been applied to such timeless acts and motivations to act is whistling past the cemetary.
I focus on the strategic effect, as this shapes the course of nations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
With respect, I think that statement needs to be held to rigour.
The basics of the Platoon attack have not changed since 1919, but yes a Platoon Commander can now call and adjust Corps level artillery fires - but that's really a "so what" issue. It's not hard to understand.
The same man can use a hand thrown or ground crawling UAV to do the same - so what?
The tactical level is not and has not become more complex. If so how?
The biggest problem I have is teaching people the limitations of all the new toys. EG: 28 knot surface wind, and most hand thrown UAV's will fly, etc etc etc.
No argument that most tactics produce very similar results at the tactical level; though just as the rifled musket forced modification of tactics to take into account a formation receiving 6-10 aimed volleys as it closed with the enemy vice the 1-2 they had received over the few hundred years preceding; so to do many advances like UAVs, guided munitions, etc; shape tactics today. But that is not what I am talking about at all.
What i am talking about is the strategic effect expected based on historical experience from COIN tactics simply is far less likely to be achieved due to the enhanced communications tools available to populaces (and therefore insurgents) everywhere.
This is the essence of the AQ phenom. The ability of a non-state to act like a State to conduct UW across many states while protected by the sanctuary of their status of not being a state, so having no state-based vulnerabilities that can be either targeted or deterred in a classic sense.
The strategic environment has changed incredibly; both because the artificial construct of the Cold War polarity that all of our policies and international organizations are based upon no longer exists; because that in it self also served as a catalyst for those oppressed by it to seek the opportunity to achieve change; and because the information tools that are fueling globalization have empowered these organizations to be more effective, more resilient, and longer reaching, than ever before.
The fact that it still only takes one bullet to kill one man is immaterial and moot to this discussion.
In this forum I do not seek approval, only thoughtful discourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
So are you actually just telling me that you think things have changed and you are having difficulty understanding what and how, or are you excusing successive US/NATO Administrations for strategic dissonance, and corporate stupidity?
Sorry Bob, I just don't see the big deal. I was far more worried when I faced 3 Shock Army and 48 nukes targeted on the 1 BR Corps area. The world is a lot safer today, and I understand it a lot better. In many ways, today military action is far less decisive and thus the world is more predictable.
Maybe there is merit in finding all sorts of new problems, but it's not a path I wish to walk.
So all positions are welcome and helpful. Seriously. I'd far rather debate a wise man with whom I disagree, than to talk to a sycophant who nods dutifully at my every syllable.
However, I will say that while your position is both quite rationale and widely held among those who shape policy; I also believe such thinking is dangerous and will ultimately facilitate the very things we fear the most.
But I have no path to take, as there have not been that many who have gone before me to make one on this particular journey. That's ok, I enjoy a little intellectual exploration and am happy to provide the sweat and bear the scars that come with breaking new trail...
Like most explorers, I may not find what I seek, but in the course of the journey I will learn much of value.