Sorry, I don't understand the question.
You said SF are for deterrence. I said I thought they are part of the conventional forces.
It's not a presumption. It's not an issue of competency per se. It's an issue of evidence. When has NATO or the US fought a true peer competitor, since 1945? North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese? Iraqis?
It is an oxymoron Wilf. They are not capable since they have not fought a true peer? IMHO 1991 Iraq was close to true peer. Only the technological gap -remember Bekaa 1982?- was already too big between NATO and WP.
90% of the IDF's problem in 2006 was an complete lack of preparation to fight a force the had vast amounts of knowledge about.
With all respect this is a completely perfect definition for incapable. Not for the single soldier but for the leadership which in modern wars matters more or even most.
Imagine 5,000 "Irregulars" or even "Regulars" with, 1,000 RPGs/PKMs, 200 ATGMS, 200 MANPADS, and 6,000 122mm rockets, dug in across 10km frontage and depth, of hilly broken and close terrain. They don't even have to be that good, to cause all Armies a very major head ache.
This is obvious. It is not insightful.
With this scenario I would employ good old 2nd generationfire roller, lots of FAC, and CAS. Any lieutenant with average knowledge of military history should be able to handle it.
If it is South Lebanon you are talking about I would drop leaflets in all local languages, in the presence of international (yes swedish too
So don't get into the fact that words have meaning? Doesn't that really limit useful discussion? Simple question. What is Irregular Warfare, if not Warfare conducted by Irregulars? SF are not Irregulars and they do not - much as they like to say it - conduct irregular warfare, unless working with Irregulars.
Good point. IMHO it also contains more promoted use of propaganda (vs kinetic ops) e.g. lip service or other and other irregular means (yes IEDs and terror attacks too). VietCong did it too, IIRC they also used kamikeze style attacks also.
Really? When? Sure they have evolved in terms of how they are practised, but not in terms of why.
Hell sure there is a difference between under and above the "military horizon" aka warrior equals all able bodied men, or soldier who is either levied, conscritped or volunteer. Trade blockade was an every day symptom of wars in 18-19 century try to do it now! I am really sorry to say that but HIC is just as likely as a good old naval blockade or massing troops on the border. Before some fundamentalist jumps on me I am not saying we should throw away all heavy equipment like the brits in the sixties dumped their conventional capbilities in favor of nukes. I am saying why (along with you) never changes. How and by whom does and it is of importance.
What were the % chances of 911? HIC is not a meaningful description. A Force trained to fight other regular forces, SHOULD be able to fight irregulars. A force that is trained and equipped to only fight irregular forces, is severely in danger from a competent (or even semi-competent) force.
If we believe Michael Scheuer and the two chinese PLA colonels (I keep forgetting their names) the % was way higher than outsiders thought.
It is an oxymoron again. If my force is unable to counter IW why does it matter whether it comes from irregulars or regulars. Yes we saw in Fallujah and in South Lebanon that no IW actor can hold ground against a modern combined army.
You and col Gentile thinks that LIC and HIC are incompatible like Rh + and Rh - in blood types. Why? Light infantry regiments were the elite of their times. Why it cannot be done today? There is't any need for dozens of armour divisions anymore.
Humbled to be put in the same league as Colin Gray (who has invited me to speak at Reading at the end of the month!) but neither of us say things have remained the same. "We" keep having to point out that things folks say are "new" usually are not. We are not against innovation. We are against an ignorance of military history and lazy thinking in Strategic studies.
Agreed. See my siganture. Nothing new under the sun. Yet Vietnam was lost, the russians (think of their partisans!!) have lost A'stan and ... These and other lessons are not learned yet. Some are like the declararion by the US Army IIRC taht any hacker activity against US armed forces is considered a military attack. But that is only tactics. If China dumps dollar as a tool in oil revenues (which seriously threatens US interests) would there be a military solution? Of course not. The international system have changed significantly see G7 becoming G20. Most armies are still legging behind in adaptation.
Wittman's attack, stalled a Division, IIRC. Did the video kill anyone or alter any military action? IF not, it's irrelevant. Video of irrelevant action is irrelevant. Would Wittman's attack have been more tactically effective if filmed? I think not.
And Zaitsev helped to turn the battle of Stalingrad according to propaganda cuz the 'fascists had to keep their heads down slowing their advance'. Today where you have not won until CNN aired it (BTW whose quote is this?) morale (political and military alike) is more important than bodycount.
To be continued
Bookmarks