Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post

he argues that we need innovation that "calls for devising techniques that avoid exposing thousands of young Americans to the hazards of combat." How could anyone oppose this idea?
I'm opposed to selling the idea that we can merely "avoid exposing thousands of young Americans to the hazards of combat" precisely because to do so is will only bloody them more. COIN fighting means controlling populations, and populations are controlled with presence, security, paybacks, politics, and force protection. Air certainly has something to add to this. COIN is not about lobbing a few cruise missiles at asprin factories in the Sudan and hoping they do some good.

It would seem that this zeal to rely on technology/airpower is a throwback to Rumsfeld circa 2000, when Transformation was the key buzzword in the beltway. Or perhaps a throwback to the 1994-2001 time period when the US embarked on random cruise missile crusades throughout the globe, often to little effect. (remember when Pres. Clinton ruled out a ground invasion of Kosovo, telling the 1990s enemy du jour, Milosovic, that our resolve is only as deep as our quantity of PGMs and the will of the KLA).

Bottom line, wars are bloody affairs. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

In the end, after the shock-and-awe decapitation of a government, we'll still have to send in ground forces. And we're heard it before that "you go to war with the army you have." So what kind of army are we going to have? One that "avoids the hazards of exposing thousands of young Americans to the hazards of combat?" I sure hope not. Such an army, when employed, would certainly shatter upon contact with the enemy.