The Death of the RMA

[Granite_State]

Agree with the thrust of this:

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_7_03_07.htm

[Lastdingo]

I agree, too.
But he scratches on the surface. The IDF could have done more if it just had pressed for it. My infos on that war are not comprehensive, but it's quite obvious that more ruthless orders would have yielded more success at higher costs.
The same lessons learned as Lind mentions for the Second Lebanon War were already learned in the aftermath of the Kosovo Air War, albeit limited ti air warfare.

RMA will probably work well in open terrain (like the Russian plains and Arabian deserts) and such an approach might help to control the open terrain between closed terrains, but overall technology is just a tool and not war itself.

The technology-centric approach would have ran into other serious and predictable problems anyway in the near future imho: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3331


edit: I'll remember this one

Army's Future Contract System

This will surely be a nice quote on many occasions.

[T. Jefferson]

Seems to me that the biggest result of transformation is the shortage of boots on the ground. Even the revised plans of this administration to grow the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 will not be enough for future needs in the Long War.

[FascistLibertarian]

Seems to me that the biggest result of transformation is the shortage of boots on the ground.

What you do with them and what they are trained for are just as important.
Having talked to some people who were in the 1st US wave I think there was a huge gulf between what they were trained to do and what they were asked to do.

See Gunner Palace for more examples of what I mean........

[Lastdingo]

Well, to date are about 160,000 official U.S. troops in Iraq afaik.
About the same quantity up to twice as much is occupied with preparing for redeployment to Iraq and not training much for conventional warfare.

So most of the army can be deployed into an unnecessary conflict. Meanwhile, the world does not fall apart. China did not invade Taiwan, Russia not Eastern European nations and North Korea did not attack South Korea.
Most important: No nation invaded the USA (just immigrants that slip by the still tiny border patrol).

Imagine the Iraq was not invaded in 2003 ... all those troops occupied by the Iraq confllict would have been unnecessary int hat scenario.

Well, I consider this situation as proof that the U.S. Army/USMC are rather too large and have too much funds.


Sorry for deviation from the topic, someone regretting lack of boots on the ground triggered this reflex of mine...

[T. Jefferson]

Lastdingo:

You might find this article interesting.

The Right-Sized Army

[T. Jefferson]

What you do with them and what they are trained for are just as important.
Having talked to some people who were in the 1st US wave I think there was a huge gulf between what they were trained to do and what they were asked to do.

See Gunner Palace for more examples of what I mean........

I quite agree that the utilization of troops is also a critical factor. The lack of planning for the post combat phase in Iraq was inexcusable. Certainly there have been many lessons learned since 2003. Plus the change in SecDef and top DoD leadership and specifically putting Gen. Petraeus in charge gives me hope of having a real chance in Iraq.