In the most general context
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
My response wasn't meant to suggest that you had proposed this. Rather, I used the possibility as a way of trying to point out some potential problems for a competitor/opponent that might choose to adopt such a strategy. I'd like to see folks' thoughts on that.
It would always seem most likely that interested parties seek ways to capitalize on what is happening at any given time rather than expecting givens for future conditions.
At least seem that way from what history I've seen:confused:
A few additional thoughts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
My concern, especially in light of some of the discussions on this board, is that such a strategy might be risk free.
For example, 20% (if I recall correctly) of Nigerian oil production is unavailable due to "insurgent" (or whatever we want to call it) activity. Now assume that a near peer attempts to foment the same in other locations (say Indonesia). The investment in financing and weaponry is tiny, the impact is large, and any attempt at intervention by the US will be met with considerable international and domestic hostility.
Similar actions could be carried out with food distribution. Or, as another example, deliberately releasing a virus, then interfering with medical relief. Simply providing support to movements such as FARC or Sendero Luminoso sufficient to destabilize the government would work.
The point I was driving at, is that a near peer doesn't have to challenge us in a conventional war. A series of LICs scattered around the world, with the near certainty of international and domestic opposition to armed response, would eventually bleed us into "defeat."
JW,
For the most part I concur with most of what you propose... Certainly another competitor could adopt such a strategy (near peer or otherwise), and this would cause us and others significant challenges.
I think this example falls apart when you expand the scenario to the point of threatening national sovereignty/cause great harm to US... Any competitor that harms the US economy in such a way also harms the global economy... The hew and cry of the globalized world would be great and a coalition of the pissed off would form.
Now if you use this same strategy as a non-peer competitor/super empowered individual/group you stand a better chance of drawing western powers into a series of prolonged/resource draining expeditions.
Live well and row
Mobilizing for war and non-war
Quote:
I believe that it's actually surprisingly easy to initiate war today because so little seems to be at stake.
Our sense of superiority before a war is so great that (especially after the 1991 Gulf War) our public doesn't tend to take the opponents really seriously.
Did any TV station predict a 7+ year war against Taleban when the invasion begun? Fuchs
I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second. A nation hasn't been mobilized, a volunteer Military has been deployed. National leadership will throw around a few mobilization terms such as Patriot Act (sounds more communist than anything the Soviets came up with), etc., but our nation has not been mobilized. Instead it was angered by 9/11, but that anger quickly faded.
I can't recall if anyone predicted a 7 year war with the Taliban, but I don't recall anyone thinking it was going to be easy. Most discussions centered around British and more recent USSR experience in Afghanistan, but our national leadership realized we still needed to get this none.
If you go to a fight without moblizing the nation is it a war?
Quote:
Which was the essential model for the Cold War and its wars of liberation Tom
True, but that sword cut both ways and we won. Fighting through surrogates is ideal, there is no need to mobilize the population to support these activities if you can keep them out the public eye.