So many questions, so little time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lastdingo
Hmm, I would say that the American style of war dates back to 1917 when the French educated the American officers on modern warfare, including their point of view on firepower and battle plans (wow, some americans will hate me for this!).
. . .
It's correct that there will be another major war, and it would be surprising if one knew about it even as little as three years in advance. It will most likely turn out being as surprising in its nature as WW1 because there were so few major wars in the past decades.
It's also correct in my opinion that mroe small wars will break out with western participation, although I consider that as easily avoidable.
I fail to see how insurgents somewhere in distant places are a threat for our security and therefore need to be combatted. There no real "need" for small wars proficiency in our armies as long as our politicians avoid stupid adventures in my opinion.
So the big war faction is in my opinion correct. Neither counter-insurgency campaigns nor amateurish peacekeeping missions without real mandate like Bosnia are unavoidable.
And in fact it would be quite possible to keep the whole NATO out of conventional conflicts for decades if our people and political elites truly wanted that.
But that won't happen. Wel'll see more peacekeeping about five to ten major wars with NATO country participation till the end of the century and a bit less large counter-insurgency campaigns, the next one at the latest around 2040 when the memories of Iraq and Afghanistan have faded.
Well, that's my guess - based on my feeling and on a look into 20th and 19th century history.
In order :
Actually it dates back much further in the History of European involvement in the North American Continent and reached a nadir of sorts during our Civil War which was the gestation point of the education of the French (who did not pay attention), British (who had too many small wars going on to get around to it) and Germans (who did pay attention) in 'modern' warfare. By the time of WW I, everyone was learning from everyone and one thing the Etats Uniens determined to do was to avoid trench stalemates...
That a major war will occur is correct and I agree with your hypothesis with one exception. The small Wars will break out but they won't be easily avoidable because "There no real "need" for small wars proficiency in our armies as long as our politicians avoid stupid adventures in my opinion." while correct, too easily dismisses the stupidity of politicians. So we can, in the end, somewhat agree.
Thus, the US needs to be prepared for total spectrum warfare with a near term emphasis on the low intensity capabilities simply on the basis of probability.
You could well be correct. My suspicion is that
the Islamists doing some significant over reaching and arousing Europe and thus beginning a segue into a minor apocalypse is too possible.
Somehow, I missed this post when it was made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjmewett
I must admit that I'm a bit stunned by your agreement here...
I have no idea who he's talking to in that statement. He ends with this:
Quote:
*I should note here that the quoted passages I've referenced specifically are not Ken White's, and that the way I've formatted this message might be somewhat confusing. By quoting Ken White's reply I meant to show that I disagree with the consensus reached by the two cited posters, though lastdingo's original sentiments are what I've chosen to respond to specifically.
Nor do I understand all I know about this statement of his...:confused:
Apparently his argument was with lastdingo, not me -- but who knows. He was absolutely correct in saying "...the way I've formatted this message might be somewhat confusing." Probably just as well I missed it earlier, who needs me erupting all over the screen... :D
However, to get up to date, on Reed11b's question; beats me -- time will tell... :wry:
I'll leave the technical answer to others but a couple of
comments may not muddy the water too much...
Quote:
The terminology seems misleading and somewhat disingenuous because the type of conflict (conventional or not) does not seem to have any relation whatsoever with the scope of the conflict (which is what the terminology implies).
While that is true, on balance the net commitment of troops and effort to these wars is relatively small compared to most previous wars -- to include Korea which was mostly conventional but still a small war not requiring a major mobilization.
With respect to:
Quote:
...given the cost and burdens placed upon the services and the nation politically and economically.
Personally, I don't see any great political burden; the economic cost is, while quite large, easily affordable and far less than the commitment of national resources required for such 'big' wars as the Civil War, WWI and WW II. the burden on the services is thus commensurately larger due to the lessened expenditure -- and, of course, the far smaller Armed Forces than those other wars required or had available. When one compares the regrettable but quite small casualty rates with any of those wars (or Korea or Viet Nam for that matter), these are emphatically small wars.
This is also true with respect to the cost, compared to percentage of GDP or other benchmarks, the dollar cost of this war is less than Viet Nam (a mid-size war) and Korea (a small war with medium intrusions in spots).
Quote:
So is Iraq a "small" war? Is/was the Russian campaign in Georgia a "big" war?
Yes to the first; a qualified no to the second.
Quote:
Clausewitz talked about a culminating point of victory in big wars -- is there a similar concept in small wars where our objectives become so numerous, complex, and detailed that they become burdensome to waging the war?
Depends on the type of conflict. Basically, if a COIN effort is involved, there is not going to be a culminating point (In Herr C's day, there could be by killing them all; can't do that today, the BBC gets upset...). If an insurgency is entailed, the best one can achieve is an acceptable outcome. Even if not (see Korea), a limited national objective may mean there is no culminating point.
Quote:
I'm not yet certain its about the dichotomy of conventional/unconventional war because I do not yet think the distinction is sufficient to actually alter the nature of war itself.
It doesn't alter war; it can alter warfare (i.e. the way the war is fought -- and ended).
Quote:
I admit my insight in this subject is simple because of my lack of hands-on experience with it, and I'm tempted to continue returning to On War as my war bible, so I'll defer to the experts.
In inverse order, an Expert is an EX, a has been, and a 'spert' is a drip of water under pressure. There are no experts and opinions are a dime a dozen. Mine are no more worthy than yours, others will have opinions that differ from both ours -- and that ought to be okay; there are no hard and fast answers. All the experience in the world still leaves one with more questions than answers...
All bibles are written by men, translated by other men and read by yet others -- that's three possibilities for error. No one is infallible and again, there are no hard and fast answers and there is absolutely no Grand Guru who is invariably correct.