How Close is 'Close Combat'?

[tequila]

The many Iraq veterans on this board can likely tell stories of some very close contact. Certainly we imposed our will in the vast majority of those fights in an extremely violent way - the only way, in those circumstances.

I don't really see how this is all that relevant in the strategic context, though. Men can and will rationalize or excuse away defeat depending on the political context, not the bloodiness or 'closeness' of the defeat - certainly Israelis will recognize and have been frustrated by that ability on the part of Arab enemies, but it is present amongst most defeated foes to a certain extent. The American South was defeated as thoroughly as one can be on a military level in extremely bloody combat, but the political context of the postwar situation gave rise to rampant Lost Cause mythology, where the Confederacy was triumphant on the battlefield but simply submerged by the Union's greater resources.

[Ken White]

There is no question that most Western forces are more than willing to engage in close combat and are doing so quite successfully on a daily basis. However, there is a question of whether or not Western policies are contributing to a perception by some that the foregoing statement is untrue...

The ability or desire to close with and kill the enemy is in one sense a macho myth -- it is far better strategically, operationally and tactically to kill more from afar than to have to close and possibly sustain greater own casualties. Most western forces subscribe to this view. Not everyone does so.

The counterpoint is that the perception of unwillingness, apparent or real, to engage in close combat can lead the opponent to believe or profess to believe that said opponent is 'superior' due to greater willingness to close and thus sacrifice. While actually quite specious it is believed by those who wish to think it so -- at least until they find out the hard way that it is in fact untrue. Regrettably, that will only apply to the spear throwers in the front -- the directing staff in the rear will ignore the reality.

That factor, while most obvious tactically can have operational and strategic impacts:

"...However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.

LINK.

Most wars in which the US has been involved -- including the current set -- were at least in part triggered by a belief on the part of opponents that the US would not or could not fight. Stronger and better reactions to probes from the Mideast since 1972 by the west and by the US in particular almost certainly would have obviated our current wars. Thus there is a strategic quotient that derives from tactical actions and the perception of those actions.

Excessive bellicosity sends a bad message. Inadequate bellicosity sends a dangerous message. Risk aversion can be seen as wise, it can also be exploited as being cowardly -- and is being so exploited today.

The fact is that most current contacts seem to be initiated by the opponents here and there because of their belief that western forces do not wish to fight. That is not true but the perception strongly fostered by our opponents is that it is so. Our risk averse policies tend to feed that. So does our poor Information Operations effort -- partly a policy problem; the two factors combine to provide a an operational problem and also likely more potential or future strategic problems.

Warfare is complex, there are no easy answers. To every decision there is a cost. In the case of excessive risk aversion as a deliberate policy, "Penny wise and Pound foolish" comes to mind..

[Patrick R Jennings]

It seems the to be the nature of soldiers to make their war the "tough one." Their combat was somehow...closer.

I've done three GWOT tours, all in the shooting arena. I have never had to pull my knife other than to peel an apple, I had a grenade but failed to use it, and the nearest I came to my enemies during a fire fight was perhaps 20 meters (although I did spend a good portion of 556 ammo).

My father was a fighter pilot in WWII and Korea and all his work was in CAS. He always joked that the only enemy fighter he ever saw during the war was in movies. His brother was killed in Italy, an infantry officer in the 36th Division, whose body was never found.

Their father, my grandfather, lost a leg in France in 1918 about ten days before the war ended...and so the family story goes.

According to my grandfather his wound was from artillery, the same weapon that took his youngest son. My grandfather had been in France less then six months, my uncle in Italy less than four. My father was in the South Pacific for roughly 14 months but admits to plenty of liberty. He also said strafing in Korea, he was off the coast there for seven months, was scary and he came back with plenty of holes in his craft but never a scratch. I got knocked around with a few IEDs but got away with little more than a headache, oh and I once got a nasty sunburn. All told, I have spent 30 months in a combat zone (roughly the total of all my relatives combined combat experience) and expect I will have to go one more time before I retire. If we could all get together the debate over whose war was toughest would be a riot.

Still, looking across this almost 92 year spectrum of a family at war it strikes me that close combat is far more rare than we think. Surely it happens and when it does it is intense and dirty but I imagine the "time in contact" numbers aren't as intense as we want to imagine. The reality is that we, and our enemies, prefer to kill from a decent range. We like aircraft, missiles and smart bombs and they like command detonated IEDs and suicide bombers.

Thus I don't think western powers have shifted away from close combat rather they have never really embraced it. Soldiers in a democracy are expensive and the bill for close combat is too high so naturally we lean toward other means.

[Infanteer]

That was a cool post - thanks for the interesting bio my friend.