Small Wars in the "new" cash strapped Western economy

[davidbfpo]

The predicted, if not actual "crunch" on public spending in the West has appeared in other threads, but SWC have IIRC not considered what the possible impact will be on Small Wars.

An occasional SWC reader posed these questions:

I was talking this morning to someone about the future of countering extremism world wide considering we are broke. More information operations? Retrenchment? Let the Chinese "carry the can"?

Abu M has touched upon this question IMHO in this:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam....html#comments

I hate scenarios normally as being too hypothetical and need a PPT. So imagination on for a moment please.

The 9/11 attack happens today, would the USA and allies embark on the follow-on Afghan campaign? I think not. Imagination off.

Is there such a concept and practice of cheap Small Wars? British Imperial history IMHO offers some examples, air power in Iraq between the wars and limited punitive campaigns in the NWFP / FATA up to 1947.

[William F. Owen]

Is there such a concept and practice of cheap Small Wars? British Imperial history IMHO offers some examples, air power in Iraq between the wars and limited punitive campaigns in the NWFP / FATA up to 1947.

Destroying the enemy can be done for comparatively cost. It's not hard. Worked in Oman, and could be done almost anywhere.
"Nouveau-COIN" cannot be done cheaply as it is entirely predicated on spending money on aid, and having the force level to "protect the population."

What the RAF did in Iraq could not be done today. The idea that it was even successful has recently been questioned, and not without reason.

[Chris jM]

Destroying the enemy can be done for comparatively cost. It's not hard.

Perhaps a wrong choice of words?

Destroying an enemy such as the Taleban and AQ is proving to be an extremely difficult and expensive undertaking, unless you have a different reading/ view of the situation than I do.

Defeating them could be done at far less a cost.

[William F. Owen]

Perhaps a wrong choice of words?

Destroying an enemy such as the Taleban and AQ is proving to be an extremely difficult and expensive undertaking, unless you have a different reading/ view of the situation than I do.

Defeating them could be done at far less a cost.

Chose my words with care. The action of destroying creates the effect of defeating.

[Chris jM]

Chose my words with care. The action of destroying creates the effect of defeating.

Makes sense, then, so I'll stand the semantic police down on this one...

... but I will have my logic cops probe a little further, out of curiosity's sake.

Doesn't your complete reliance on destruction limit your options? If you can defeat an enemy through deterrence, then that is legitimate is it not? Is there any meaning behind your insistence on 'destroy' that you would choose it above the more holistic, all-encompassing term of defeat?

[William F. Owen]

my logic cops probe a little further, out of curiosity's sake.

I bet you say that to all the girls!

Doesn't your complete reliance on destruction limit your options? If you can defeat an enemy through deterrence, then that is legitimate is it not? Is there any meaning behind your insistence on 'destroy' that you would choose it above the more holistic, all-encompassing term of defeat?

It is only a reliance because that is what armed forces do.
I can only deter him, if I do stuff that does actually deter him.
Killing - and specifically killing - is a very necessary part of that. Capture also works if the period of detention is long enough to deter as well.

"Own KIA" is the most powerful policy driver I know of. That was why the US left Vietnam, the Lebanon, and Mogadishu. It was why the Soviets left Afghanistan.

You will not win if you kill/capture one bad guy a month. You have to kill in numbers and with a frequency that causes the breaking of will. I strongly believe that is it far from impossible and actually more doable than we wish to admit, because we wish to focus on being "a force for good," instead of the instruments of destruction to set forth policy.

Do not kill the population. You need to make sure the only folks doing that are the bad guys, and yes you can differentiate the population from the bad guys. It requires skill and intelligence. It has been done many time before. .
The population will support the winning side. They always do.

Yes, make alliances and allies, IF that helps you find and kill the enemy -

[slapout9]

Chose my words with care. The action of destroying creates the effect of defeating.

Wilf, I always new you were a secret believer in EBO.